Case law

Haytasingh v. City of San Diego

California Court of Appeal · Nov 10, 2021

For example, one of the bill’s descriptions provided that “Assembly Bill No. 555, ‘by providing a qualified immunity, would limit a public entity’s duty to keep its land safe for certain recreational users.’ (Sen. … These statutory provisions are simply not similar; section 831.7 clearly provides far broader immunity than Civil Code section 846.11 11 While the immunity in section 831.7 is limited to hazardous recreational activities

County of Los Angeles v. Hill

192 Cal. App. 4th 861 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 9, 2011

Among other things, it provides that qualified patients and their primary caregivers have limited immunity from prosecution for violation of various sections of the Health and Safety Code regulating marijuana including the … , dispensary, operator, establishment, or provider.” (§ 11362.768, subds.

Mosby v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

2 Cal. Rptr. 3d 286 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 2003

With regard to the mechanics of payment, the mishandling was clearly within the exclusivity rule. Thus the doctors could not state abuse of process claims. … Co. v. *1005 Superior Court (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 867, 872 [ 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 211 ] [“There is no question that section 1877.5 limits the immunity it establishes to reports made without malice.”].)

Vallejo City Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 2026

Having established the school district’s common law duty to supervise, the majority rejected the district’s defense that the off-campus situs of the plaintiff’s injury ipso facto immunized it. … “[I]f not fairly termed dictum [citations], [the discussion] was a carefully qualified holding. It called the Legislature ‘principally concerned’ with before- and after-school travel to and from home. [Citation.]

Eastburn v. REGIONAL FIRE PROTECTION AUTH.

119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 655 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 2002

[A] qualified immunity from liability shall be provided for public entities and emergency rescue personnel providing emergency services. "(b) ... … But where those services are instituted under the aegis of a fire protection agency, the qualified immunity of section 1799.107 applies.

McGarry v. University of San Diego

64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 467 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 17, 2007

Here, the considerations outlined in Terry convince us the statements concerning McGarry’s employment termination qualify for anti-SLAPP treatment. … cites no pertinent authority supporting his claim that the reporters’ immunity was waived.

Shalabi v. Perniciaro CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 2024

“[T]he qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the [constitutional] right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation. … Pelzer 536 U.S. 730, 741 [when “the law is clearly established,” case summaries are not necessary in a qualified immunity analysis].)

People v. Brunner

32 Cal. App. 3d 908 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 12, 1973

The order signed by the cqurt and filed in the record *912 clearly states it was based on Brunner’s motion for immunity from prosecution. … On court approval of the agreement immunity will be granted the witness after he has complied with the representations of the agreement. 3 As with plea bargains, terms of a promise of immunity should appear clearly on the

Centeno v. Superior Court

11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 533 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 25, 2004

The record establishes that defendant has tendered the issue of his mental retardation. He applied to the trial court for a hearing on the issue of mental retardation. … Immunity Penal Code section 1376 provides a limited immunity at the guilt phase for statements made by a defendant during a court-ordered examination. Defendant asserts that a limited immunity is inadequate.

Fenelon v. Superior Court

223 Cal. App. 3d 1476 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 20, 1990

We also requested additional briefing on equal protection questions raised by the inconsistency between Civil Code section 47.5, which establishes a qualified privilege for false reports of misconduct to a police officer’ … Taylor: Communications to Police with Absolute Immunity: Revenge Courtesy of Civil Code Section 47(2) (1986) 18 U.WestL.A. L.Rev. 51, 57-58.

Hart v. County of Orange

254 Cal. App. 2d 302 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 13, 1967

of immunity or liability into focus. … The modifying phrase which concludes the definition just quoted necessarily qualifies all that precedes in the section for the reason that actionable injxiries are what part 2 of the subject legislation is all about, *306

Meddock v. County of Yolo

California Court of Appeal · Oct 3, 2013

Thus, we have pointed out that „courts should not casually decree governmental immunity . . .‟ [citation], and that „[u]nless the Legislature has clearly provided for immunity, the important societal goal of compensating … In another case emphasized by Meddock, one court, quoting Professor Arvo Van Alstyne, the lead drafter of the Government Claims Act, stated “to qualify public property as improved so as to take it outside the immunity statute

Ellis v. D'Angelo

116 Cal. App. 2d 310 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 27, 1953

“This general rule denying immunity must, however, be qualified in a number of respects. In many torts, the state of mind of the actor is an important element. … The only *320 allegation of knowledge by the parent was that the child was “disposed to climb about the furniture,” clearly not enough to show dangerous conduct. In Weber v.

Wright v. City of Los Angeles

113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 352 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 2, 2001

That is precisely what sections 835 and 855.4 have done, i.e., made it clear that the immunity provided in section 855.4 prevails over the liability established in section 835. … Next, the Wrights assert that immunity found in section 855.4 is not applicable to the facts of this case because the section was “clearly intended to apply in situations where a public entity acts in response to an outbreak

Estes v. Monroe

16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 616 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 2004

Feres , however, does not rest on principles of justiciability or immunity. … rules of immunity (as opposed to immunity specifically prescribed in the Constitution) should be held a priori to describe the limit of those concerns here than in any other field.”

People v. Rubio

California Court of Appeal · Jul 18, 2019

That is, 7 officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless they have “violated a ‘clearly established’ right,” which means that in an appropriate case a court can enter … Questions of qualified immunity aside, Ryburn is also factually distinguishable.

N.N v. v. American Ass'n of Blood Banks

89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 885 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 28, 1999

The trial court rejected the AABB’s claim of qualified immunity under section 43.7(b) on the basis the statute was limited to review of the quality of medical services, i.e., to peer review. … We also do not need to address the arguments of the amici curiae that professional associations should be entitled to a qualified quasi-governmental immunity for setting voluntary standards.

Martinez v. County of Los Angeles

47 Cal. App. 4th 334 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 11, 1996

“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense against section 1983 claims. [Citation.] … With these principles in mind, the undisputed facts of this case properly call for invocation of the qualified immunity doctrine.

Coburn v. Sievert

35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 596 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 10, 2005

The immunity associated with release at the end of the holding period is not qualified by the phrase “if the provisions of Section 5152 have been met.” … The Bragg case involved a clearly presented alternative motive for the early release—economic concerns based on the detainee’s lack of insurance.

Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Superior Court

196 Cal. App. 4th 1263 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 2011

While this language clearly provides greater protection for opinion work product than that provided for other work product, it “leaves room for argument that the immunity conferred on ‘hard-core’ work product is not absolute … Clearly, this language contains the same inherent ambiguities as in the current language, as it provides for absolute protection for “any writing” that reflects opinion work product and qualified protection for all other